Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that data is live from Meta, includes ads without delivery yet, returns specific fields, and excludes deleted/archived ads unless requested via effective_status. It does not discuss pagination behavior or rate limits, but the schema covers pagination parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping statement, followed by the exclusivity constraint, returned fields, use cases, and a default-exclusion note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it states scope, freshness, the exact parameter constraint, returned fields, practical use cases, and default filtering behavior. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining the exclusivity of ad_set_id vs campaign_id, reinforcing how effective_status affects which ads are returned, and connecting the returned creative id to downstream tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: listing ALL ads inside an ad set or campaign, live from Meta. It is clearly distinguished from insights-based views and related sibling tools by emphasizing it returns ads created today that have no delivery yet, and it names the exact returned fields.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides concrete use cases: enumerating ads before duplicating an ad set, auditing what exists, or selecting an ad_id for adsap_get_ad, adsap_get_ad_status, and adsap_replace_ad_creative. It also clarifies the exclusivity constraint (pass exactly one of ad_set_id or campaign_id), though it does not explicitly list alternatives to avoid.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.